The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Why don't physicians adhere to guideline recommendations in practice? An analysis of barriers among Dutch general practitioners
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Despite wide distribution and promotion of clinical practice guidelines, adherence among Dutch general practitioners (GPs) is not optimal. To improve adherence to guidelines, an analysis of barriers to implementation is advocated. Because different recommendations within a guideline can have different barriers, in this study we focus on key recommendations rather than guidelines as a whole, and explore the barriers to implementation perceived by Dutch GPs. METHODS: A qualitative study using six focus groups was conducted, in which 30 GPs participated, with an average of seven per session. Fifty-six key recommendations were derived from twelve national guidelines. In each focus group, barriers to the implementation of the key recommendations of two clinical practice guidelines were discussed. Focus group discussions were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Data was analysed by using an existing framework of barriers. RESULTS: The barriers varied largely within guidelines, with each key recommendation having a unique pattern of barriers. The most perceived barriers were lack of agreement with the recommendations due to lack of applicability or lack of evidence (68% of key recommendations), environmental factors such as organisational constraints (52%), lack of knowledge regarding the guideline recommendations (46%), and guideline factors such as unclear or ambiguous guideline recommendations (43%). CONCLUSION: Our study findings suggest a broad range of barriers. As the barriers largely differ within guidelines, tailored and barrier-driven implementation strategies focusing on key recommendations are needed to improve adherence in practice. In addition, guidelines should be more transparent concerning the underlying evidence and applicability, and further efforts are needed to address complex issues such as comorbidity in guidelines. Finally, it might be useful to include focus groups in continuing medical education as an innovative medium for guideline education and implementation.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research
Billson, J. M. (1989) · Human Biology · Cited by 8,560
Why Don't Physicians Follow Clinical Practice Guidelines?: A Framework for Improvement
Cabana, M. D., Rand, C. S., Powe, N. R., Wu, A. W., Wilson, M. H., Abboud, P.-A. C., & Rubin, H. R. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.282.15.1458 · Cited by 6,677
Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes
Ivers, N., Jamtvedt, G., Flottorp, S., Young, J. M., Odgaard-Jensen, J., French, S. D., O'Brien, M. A., Johansen, M., Grimshaw, J., & Oxman, A. D. (2012) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd000259.pub3 · Cited by 5,485
From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients' care
Grol, R., & Grimshaw, J. (2003) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(03)14546-1 · Cited by 4,531
Qualitative research in health care: Assessing quality in qualitative research
Mays, N. (2000) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.320.7226.50 · Cited by 3,742
Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies
Grimshaw, J., Thomas, R., MacLennan, G., Fraser, C., Ramsay, C., Vale, L., Whitty, P., Eccles, M., Matowe, L., Shirran, L., et al. (2004) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta8060 · Cited by 3,044
Effect of clinical guidelines on medical practice: a systematic review of rigorous evaluations
Grimshaw, J. M., & Russell, I. T. (1993) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/0140-6736(93)92244-n · Cited by 2,770
Qualitative Research: Rigour and qualitative research
Mays, N., & Pope, C. (1995) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.311.6997.109 · Cited by 2,715
Boyd, C. M., Darer, J., Boult, C., Fried, L. P., Boult, L., & Wu, A. W. (2005) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.294.6.716 · Cited by 2,581
Bero, L. A., Grilli, R., Grimshaw, J. M., Harvey, E., Oxman, A. D., & Thomson, M. A. (1998) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.317.7156.465 · Cited by 2,396
Cited by
Koffel, E., Bramoweth, A. D., & Ulmer, C. S. (2018) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-018-4390-1 · Cited by 391
Barriers to effective management of type 2 diabetes in primary care: qualitative systematic review
Rushforth, B., McCrorie, C., Glidewell, L., Midgley, E., & Foy, R. (2016) · British Journal of General Practice · doi:10.3399/bjgp16x683509 · Cited by 289
Lugtenberg, M., Burgers, J. S., Clancy, C., Westert, G. P., & Schneider, E. C. (2011) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025987 · Cited by 220
Self-citationBoivin, A., Currie, K., Fervers, B., Gracia, J., James, M., Marshall, C., Sakala, C., Sanger, S., Strid, J., Thomas, V., et al. (2010) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/qshc.2009.034835 · Cited by 201
Self-citation10 years of mindlines: a systematic review and commentary
Wieringa, S., & Greenhalgh, T. (2015) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0229-x · Cited by 150
Metadata
- Authors
- Lugtenberg, M., Zegers-van Schaick, J. M., Westert, G. P., & Burgers, J. S.
- Venue
- Implementation Science
- Published
- 2009-08-12
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 54-54
- ISSN
- 1748-5908 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2169336698
- Cited by
- 478
- References
- 45
- FWCI
- 17.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Why don't physicians adhere to guideline recommendations in practice? An analysis of barriers among Dutch general practitioners. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1748-5908-4-54
- The paper
- Lugtenberg, M., Zegers-van Schaick, J. M., Westert, G. P., & Burgers, J. S. (2009). Why don't physicians adhere to guideline recommendations in practice? An analysis of barriers among Dutch general practitioners. Implementation Science. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-54
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.